Treating high CO2 gases

with MDEA
Using MDEA as a solvent for high levels of CO2 removal requires careful
process modelling using accurate simulation
Jenny Seagraves Ineos Oxide
Ralph H Weiland Optimized Gas Treating

eneric N-methyldiethanolamine
(MDEA) is commonly used as a
highly selective solvent to treat
sour gases down to parts-per-million
levels of H2S while slipping a large
proportion of the CO2 in the feed gas
from the system. It is also the major
constituent in many speciality amine
formulations developed for deeper
CO2 removal in applications such as
synthesis gas production and treating
high CO2 natural gases found in several
regions of the world. However, in recent
years, attempts have been made to use
solvents containing MDEA alone for
CO2 removal from high concentration
gases, usually at high pressure.
A number of treating plants have
been designed and built around using
generic MDEA for treating high CO2
gases. However, there is a limit to how
much CO2 removal can be achieved
using generic MDEA in a column of
reasonable height or tray count.
Unfortunately, several CO2-only plants
have failed to meet treating requirements
or have encountered treating difficulties
as a result of the choice of solvent. In
many cases, these plants have had to be
retrofitted to speciality amines, and
sometimes they have had to undergo
expensive tower revamps in order to
correct the problems.
This article is intended to help prevent
future failures by exploring the
limitations of using generic MDEA for
CO2 removal applications. Through case
studies that use plant performance data,
it demonstrates what is possible and
what is not.

Understanding the process

In most treating applications for

removing CO2 as the only acid gas
constituent, the choice of MDEA as the
sole active ingredient in the solvent is
likely to be unsatisfactory, except in
cases where only a small amount of CO2
removal is needed. To make correct,
rational decisions on solvent selection,
it is helpful to understand why this is
the case.

www.eptq.com

Interface
Concentration
CO2 in gas
Physical solubility

Chemical
solubility

Steep gradient

No reaction

Fast reaction
Gas

Liquid

Figure 1 Typical concentration profiles for CO2 in the gas and liquid phases when
there is no reaction and when the reaction is relatively fast
MDEA is a tertiary amine whose
amine group lacks even the single proton
that is so essential to react directly with
CO2. In terms of its chemistry, the most
that MDEA can do is provide a sink for
the hydrogen ions produced when CO2
hydrolyses in water:
CO2 + H2O H+ + HCO3HCO3- H+ + CO3=
H+ + R3N R3NH+

Although CO2 does not react with

MDEA, when you measure the effect of
MDEA on the absorption rate of CO2,
the results can be interpreted in terms of
chemical reaction rate parameters for
the so-called apparent reaction
between CO2 and MDEA. This apparent
reaction is found to be first order in both
MDEA and CO2 with a very small, albeit
non-zero, value for the reaction rate
constant. There is no question that
MDEA is unable to react directly with
CO2, because it cannot form a reaction
product (such as the carbamated form

that results with primary and secondary

amines). Instead, it is said to catalyse the
hydrolysis reaction of CO2. But even
when catalysed, the CO2 hydrolysis
reaction is extremely slow, so slow in
fact that it barely affects the CO2
absorption rate at all. In other words,
unlike primary and secondary amines,
the apparent reaction kinetics of MDEA
does not have much impact on the rate
of the absorption process.
MDEAs real role is to provide an
enormous sink for protons produced by
slow CO2 hydrolysis. Thus, while the
capacity of MDEA solutions for CO2 is
very high, the absorption rate is so low
that this capacity is rarely realised in
practice, unless the chemistry is
enhanced by means of a promoter. The
reason for low absorption rates can be
clarified by considering the effect of
chemical reaction on absorption, and
what the driving force for absorption
really is.
There are two kinds of solubility that
are important: the physical solubility of
CO2 in the solvent (the solution is rarely
less than 90 mol% water in commercial

GAS 2009 103

/UTLETGAS





!CIDGAS

#ONTROL

2ECYCLE

Absorber
)NLETGAS



#"

,EANAMINE
COOLER







0UMP



Regenerator



&LASHGAS

#ROSS
EXCHANGER

&LASH



Figure 2 PFD of plant for case study 1

Simulated performance with 2 inch and 5 inch weirs

Equilibrium-stage- ProTreat mass
based mode transfer model

2 inch
5 inch
2 inch
5 inch

(50mm)
(125mm)
(50mm)
(125mm)

weir
weir
weir
weir
Inlet gas flow, MMscfd (Nm3/s)
10 (3.28)
10 (3.28)
10 (3.28)
10 (3.28)
Inlet pressure, psig (barg)
765 (52.7) 765 (52.7) 765 (52.7) 765 (52.7)
Inlet temperature, F (C)
110 (43)
110 (43)
110 (43)
110 (43)
Inlet CO2, mol%
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
Outlet CO2, mol%
0.68
0.20
2.08
1.72
MDEA strength, wt%
50
50
50
50
Lean amine, USgpm (m3/h)
130 (29.5) 130 (29.5) 130 (29.5) 130 (29.5)
Lean amine temperature, F (C) 120 (49)
120 (49)
120 (49)
120 (49)

Table 1
MDEA solvents); and the equilibrium
solubility of CO2 in the treating solution
as it is measured in the laboratory (which
we will call the chemical solubility). The
physical solubility is quite low and is
properly calculated from Henrys Law
for CO2 in water, modified somewhat for
the effect the amine has in replacing up
to 10 or 12 mol% of the water with a
component (the amine) in which the
physical solubility of CO2 is considerably
higher. The chemical solubility, on
the other hand, is extremely high
because MDEA protonation allows very
high bicarbonate and carbonate
concentrations to be formed.
The absorption of CO2 occurs in a
series of steps: diffusion from the gas to
the gas-liquid interface; gas dissolution
into the liquid at the interface; possible
chemical reaction with the amine; and
diffusion of the dissolved gas in both its
free and reacted forms away from the
interface and into the bulk of the liquid.
Figure 1 shows typical concentration
gradients of CO2 diffusing through the
gas and the liquid when there is no
reaction (shallow gradient) and relatively
fast reaction (steeper gradient that
enhances the diffusional mass transfer
rate).
The process of dissolving is physical
and its rate is determined by the physical
solubility of the gas right at the interface.

Diffusion away from the interface

through the liquid takes place under a
concentration driving force, which is
the concentration gradient of the
unreacted (but maybe still reacting) gas.
Reaction steepens the concentration
gradient and so it allows the diffusional
process to occur must faster. In other
words, reaction accelerates mass transfer
rates in the liquid (roughly in proportion
to the square root of the reaction rate
constant). But if the reaction is too slow,
as it is in the case of CO2 hydrolysis,
there is no mass transfer enhancement,
although the solvents capacity is still
enormously high. What are the
implications of this for MDEA as a
solvent specifically for CO2 removal?
For those who think in terms of
theoretical stages, the chemical solubility
is used as the basis for stepping off the
number of theoretical stages, whether
this is done on a piece of paper or within
a computer simulation. The problem
comes in translating the resulting NTS
count into actual trays or bed depths for
packing. The solvent capacity is
extremely high, but the driving force for
absorption is just as extremely low
because of the poor physical solubility.
The result is extraordinarily low tray
efficiencies and enormous height
equivalent to theoretical plate (HETP)
and height of transfer unit (HTU) values.

The theoretical stage approach to

simulation of such a process is utterly
inappropriate; the process is completely
controlled by the slow absorption rates,
not by chemical equilibrium. The only
way to approach this type of problem is
through a true mass and heat transfer
rate-based simulation that is grounded
in the real physics and the real chemistry
of the process. ProTreat is the only such
simulator commercially available that is
robust enough for general everyday use
in amine treating.
MDEA was originally intended as a
highly selective solvent for H2S removal
and for the maximum rejection of CO2
into the treated gas stream. The reason it
works so well in selective treating is that
it does not react appreciably with CO2, so
it absorbs this gas only very slowly. It is
not an exaggeration to state that it was
never intended for use specifically in CO2
removal. This is not to say that it can
never find use in such an application, but
the circumstances will be unique and
limited. If MDEA is selected for a CO2
removal application, it must be borne in
mind that equilibrium-stage models tend
to be quite optimistic in their predictions
of CO2 removal with MDEA.
The remainder of this article presents
two case studies intended to demonstrate
how MDEA in CO2-only applications
can fail, despite the designs having been
done in strict accordance with a modified
equilibrium-stage simulation: how
ProTreats mass and heat transfer model
produces the correct design results; and
how a bad design can be remedied with
speciality solvents. Both case studies
involve the removal of CO2 from one
gas stream, followed by blending the
treated gas into another, higher CO2
stream to produce final pipeline gas.

Case study 1

A plant for treating a stream of 9.5%

CO2 in methane with 50 wt% generic
MDEA to a target level of 0.5% was
initially designed according to the
dictates of a commercial, reactionmodified,
equilibrium-stage-based

104 GAS 2009

www.eptq.com

simulator, which suggested that 22 trays

would be adequate (see Figure 2 for a
PFD of the plant). The treated gas was to
be blended with other streams to meet a
pipeline specification of 2% CO2.
Equipment was ready to be installed and
the plant was scheduled for startup
when Ineos was asked to validate the
MDEA design. An evaluation using mass
transfer rate-based simulations showed
that the plant would be unable to meet
even the 2% CO2 specification required
for the final blended gas, much less the
0.5% CO2 target for the treated gas itself.
Indeed, 50 trays would be needed to
reach 0.5% CO2 in the outlet gas using
MDEA. Table 1 shows the results of
equilibrium-stage-based calculations
(seven stages, three trays each) and
ProTreat simulations of the design case
with 2 inch and 5 inch (50mm and
125mm) weirs. Clearly, mass transfer
rate-based modelling indicates that even
making 2% CO2 in the treated gas with
the original 2 inch (50mm) weirs is
highly problematic.
The results of this assessment were
certainly not what the engineers had
expected and they were left scrambling
for a solution. Fortunately, two
circumstances provided a reprieve. First,
the plant was expected to start up at
lower rates and at a lower CO2 level than
was initially anticipated. Second, the
gas processing facility had the flexibility
to blend the treated gas with another gas
stream from a diglycolamine (DGA) unit
that was much lower in CO2. Thus, even
if the MDEA plant did not remove
enough CO2, the blended stream would
still meet the treating requirement of
2% CO2 in the pipeline gas. As a result,
the engineers decided to proceed with
the project using MDEA. As a
precautionary measure, however, they
were advised to increase the weir height
in the contactor from 25 inch. The
recommendation was also made to
switch from MDEA to a Gas/Spec CS2000 series solvent as the plant
approached full design rates in the
future. These solvents will remove much
more CO2 than generic MDEA.
An interesting aside is to enquire
about the possible effects of operating
with a colder lean solvent and the effect
of replacing the 22 trays with, say, 50ft
(15m) of packing. With a 5 inch (125mm)
weir, lean temperatures of 80F and 60F
would produce a treated gas containing
only 0.97 mol% and 0.57 mol% CO2,
respectively, which would almost meet
the target composition at full rates.
Using 50ft (15m) of Mellapak Plus M252.
Y packing with a 60F (15.6C) lean
amine would produce gas containing
0.96 mol% CO2. This indicates that
structured packing is probably preferred
if CO2 slip is desired because its mass
transfer characteristics are less conducive
to CO2 absorption.

Comparison of actual vs simulated plant performance at reduced-rate

startup conditions


Inlet gas flow, MMscfd (Nm3/s)
Inlet pressure, psig (barg)
Inlet temperature, F (C)
Inlet CO2, mol%
Outlet CO2, mol%
MDEA strength, wt%
Lean amine, USgpm (m3/h)
Lean loading, mol/mol
Lean temperature, F (C)
Rich loading, mol/mol

Measured performance
after startup (Aug 2007)
6.4 (2.1)
820 (56.5)
81 (27)
7.95
0.8
50
100 (22.7)
N/A
101 (38)
N/A

ProTreat
simulation
6.4 (2.1)
820 (56.5)
81 (27)
7.95
0.7
50
100 (22.7)
0.0040
101 (38)
0.22

Table 2
As anticipated, at a lower gas rate (6.4
vs 10 MMscfd) and a reduced CO2
concentration in the feed gas (7.95% vs
9.5%) the plant was able to operate for a
number of months without serious
difficulty. Table 2 shows the measured
plant performance shortly after startup
and compares it with ProTreat simulation.
Even with reduced inlet CO2 and gas
flow, the plant was only able to remove
CO2 to 0.8 mol%, significantly higher
than the 0.5 mol% thought to be
achievable by a modified equilibriumstage simulation of the original design
case. The treated gas composition, in
contrast, was fairly well predicted by
ProTreat. Note that the lean amine
loading was not measured; however, the
regenerator was also simulated using the
heat and mass transfer rate model and
known regenerator dimensions and
measured reboiler duty, and the lean
loading was predicted to be 0.004 mol/
mol, typical of what is commonly found
in MDEA plants.
After two years of operation, the raw
gas flow rate and its CO2 content had
finally risen to levels that demanded
further
action.
The
measured
performance at that time (August 2008)
is compared with simulation in Table 3.
It is worth mentioning that although
the plant was designed for a 130 USgpm
(30 m3/h) circulation rate, the operators

were never able to exceed 100 USgpm

(23 m3/h). Note also that the gas flow
rate to the unit is still 10% below the
design rate, and the CO2 content is still
1.5 mol% lower than originally
anticipated. Even under these conditions,
reaching 0.5% CO2 would require about
40 trays, not the 22 trays of the original
design.
The situation took on greater urgency
when the DGA unit shut down due to
corrosion in the regeneration column.
Without a blend gas to dilute the CO2,
the facility had to cut production. Notice
that treated gas from the absorber itself
is now close to the pipeline specification,
so the facility is not able to blend any
gas with this stream. By this time, the
processor saw the need to implement
the solvent change in order to assure
maximum production.
The consequences of the incorrect
original design were mitigated in part
by a last-minute tray modification, and
by the fact that the actual gas flow and
composition were taken together over
30% lower than the design was supposed
to accommodate. Only after two years
of operation, when original design
conditions must now be met, has the
consequence of using a modified
equilibrium-stage-based model for this
type of application come to a head. The
only sensible solution is a solvent

Comparison of measured and simulated performance

near maximum capacity


Inlet gas flow, MMscfd (Nm3/s)
Inlet pressure, psig (barg)
Inlet temperature, F (C)
Inlet CO2, mol%
Outlet gas temp., F (C)
Outlet CO2, mol%
MDEA strength, wt%
Lean amine, USgpm (m3/h)
Lean temperature, F (C)
Lean loading, mol/mol
Rich loading, mol/mol

Maximum rate
(Aug 2008)
9 (2.95)
830 (57.2)
66 (18.9)
8
114 (45.6)
1.72
52
100 (22.7)
114 (45.6)
N/A
N/A

ProTreat
simulation
9 (2.95)
830 (57.2)
66 (18.9)
8
115 (46.1)
1.34
52
100 (22.7)
114 (45.6)
0.0044
0.287

Table 3

106 GAS 2009

www.eptq.com

25



50



4RAYFROMTOP

Tray from top

75

100





150
100
75
50
35
22

125

150
100

120










140
160
Temperature, F

180

200









-OL#/





Figure 3 Plots of temperature and mol% CO2 vs tray number for total tray counts from 22 (number actually installed) to 150. The
absorber as designed can never achieve better than 1.3 mol% CO2, not the <1 mol% intended
change-out to a speciality amine.
Fortunately, ProTreats mass transfer
rate-based simulations allowed the
operators of this facility to anticipate
what was coming and to plan for
corrective action well in advance. At the
time of writing, the plant is in the
process of being converted to a Gas/Spec
CS-2000 series solvent.

Case study 2

This is another example of a natural gas

containing CO2 as the only acidic
component. In this case, the processor
needed to treat up to 177 MMscfd (58
Nm3/s) of gas with up to 4.5% CO2.
Treated gas from the absorber was to be
blended with other gas streams to
produce a total of 280 MMscfd (92 Nm3/
s) of natural gas with a maximum
2 mol% CO2 specification. It was
therefore advantageous to have the
amine plant remove as much CO2 as
possible because more of the untreated
streams could then be blended with the
treated gas to increase the facilitys
overall production rate. The design was
based on the use of generic MDEA to
remove greater than 600 lbmol/h (272
kmol/h) of CO2 (see Table 4). Typically,
plant operators like to target less than 1
mol% CO2 in the outlet gas to achieve
this kind of blending goal. (Treating 177
MMscfd from 4.0 mol% to 1 mol% CO2
is a removal rate of 600 lbmol/h.) This
target was thought achievable based on

www.eptq.com

results from prior modified equilibriumstage-based simulations. However, mass

transfer rate-based modelling predicts
that the best this design could do is 1.19
mol% CO2 even with 100 trays; 1 mol%
is not achievable, although 650 lbmol/
hr (295 kmol/h) removal is.
Interestingly, under the design
operating conditions, this column is
severely pinched in the middle, not at
either of the ends. This is shown in
Figure 3, where the temperature profile
and the profile of mole percentage CO2
in the gas are plotted as functions of
tray number for total tray counts
ranging from 22 (the number actually

Design basis for case study 2

Design basis
Inlet gas flow, MMscfd
(Nm3/s)
177 (58)
Inlet pressure, psia (bara) 1050 (71.5)
Inlet temperature, F (C)
90 (32)
Inlet CO2, mol%
4.5
Outlet CO2 target, mol%
<1
Blended outlet CO2, mol%
<2
MDEA strength, wt%
50
Lean amine, USgpm (m3/h) 900 (204)
Lean temperature, F (C)
110 (43)
Lean loading, mol/mol
0.005
Rich loading, mol/mol
0.3
CO2 removal, lbmol/h
(kmol/h)
>600 (>272)

Table 4

installed) up to 150. These plots show

that no matter how many trays are
installed, the design target of <1 mol%
CO2 could never be achieved. As more
trays are added, the temperature bulge
simply expands to occupy the additional
trays.
For several years after startup, the
plant operated at lower rates because
the feed gas was limited and the plant
was continually experiencing foaming
problems caused by the ingress of heavy
hydrocarbons (C6+) and pipeline
treating chemicals such as H2S
scavengers. The foaming problem
seemed to be exacerbated by the higher
circulation rate required with MDEA
when used for high CO2 removal
applications. Although foaming was
addressed by modifying the filtercoalescer
and
eliminating
the
contamination source (by moving the
H2S scavenger injection point from
upstream of the amine plant to
downstream), the MDEA solution never
removed as much CO2 as the plants
operators had hoped. Table 5 shows a
few measured data points of the actual
removal with 50 wt% MDEA and
compares
them
with
ProTreat
simulations. ProTreat appears to slightly
under-predict the actual removal rate of
CO2 for Data set 2, although agreement
is quite close for the other two cases,
with predictions lying slightly above
and slightly below measured data.

GAS 2009 107

www.eptq.com

Operating data and ProTreat simulations with MDEA at various inlet gas rates

Design goal Data set 1 Data set 2 Data set 3
Inlet gas flow, MMscfd (Nm3/s)
177 (58)
123 (40) 154 (50.5) 177 (58)
Inlet pressure, psia (bara)
1050 (71.5) 1126 (76.7) 1025 (69.8) 1050 (71.5)
Inlet temperature, F (C)
91 (32.7) 111 (43.9) 97 (36)
97 (36)
Inlet CO2, mol%
4.5
4
4.23
4.3
Outlet CO2, mol%
<1.0
1.3
0.87
1.4
Outlet CO2 ProTreat, mol%
1.6
1.44
1.13
1.30
MDEA strength, wt%
50
50
50
50
Lean amine, USgpm (m3/h)
900 (204) 600 (136) 841 (191) 900 (204)
Lean temperature F (C)
110 (43)
124 (51)
106 (41)
106 (41)
Lean loading, mol/mol
0.005
0.004
0.005
0.005
CO2 removal, lbmol/h (kmol/h)
>600 (>272) 372 (169) 572 (259) 570 (259)
Simulated removal, lbmol/h (kmol/h) 570 (259) 350 (159) 528 (239) 589 (267)

Table 5
Operating data with Gas/Spec CS-2000 and comparison with
ProTreat simulation

Inlet gas flow, MMscfd (Nm3/s)
Inlet pressure, psia (bara)
Inlet temperature, F (C)
Inlet CO2, mol%
Estimated outlet CO2, ppmv
Simulated outlet CO2, ppmv
Solvent strength, wt%
Lean amine, USgpm (m3/h)
Lean temperature F (C)
Lean loading, mol/mol
CO2 removal, lbmol/h (kmol/h)
Simulated removal, lbmol/h (kmol/h)

Design target
177 (58)


4.5
<1.0%





>600 (>272)

Data set 4
152 (50)
1014 (69)
91 (32.8)
4.3
<100
337
48
860 (195)

0.005
720 (326)
711 (322)

Data set 5
152 (50)
988 (67.3)
85 (29.4)
4.37
<200
345
48
871 (197)
100 (37.8)
0.022
720 (326)
723 ((327)

Detectable limit 100 ppmv

Table 6




0RESSUREDIFFERENTIAL+GCM

Increasing demand for natural gas

slowly pushed the rate to the design
capacity, and five years after startup the
plant could no longer meet the CO2
specification while operating at a high
gas throughput. At maximum gas
throughput and circulation rate, the
treated gas contained 1.4 mol% CO2 (vs
1.3 mol% via ProTreat simulation) and
the amount of gas that could be blended
became severely limited. The processor
was forced to negotiate a gas quality
waiver with the pipeline company and
other parties, allowing it to supply gas at
the higher CO2 level of 3 mol%. Only by
paying a substantial penalty fee for this
waiver could the processor continue to
supply gas to meet the growing
demand.
While plant personnel were struggling
to maximise plant capacity, the plant
engineers and managers were considering
several longer-term options to address
the problem. One possibility was to add
another amine train to the facility.
Another was to change the solvent to
one more suited to deeper CO2 removal.
The processor contacted Ineos Oxide,
which recommended Gas/Spec CS-2000
solvent for this particular application.
Once the decision was made to proceed
and the chemicals were brought on-site,
by adding the solvent package to the
existing MDEA solution, the conversion
to the new solvent took only 12 hours to
complete. The outlet CO2 dropped from
nearly 1.5 mol% to a few hundred
ppmv. Table 6 shows measured
performance data and comparisons with
ProTreat simulations.
The deeper removal achieved with
Gas/Spec CS-2000 translated into a CO2
removal rate of 720 lbmol/h (326 kmol/
h), which is a 20% increase in CO2
removal capacity over generic MDEA. As
a result, less gas now needs to be treated
in the absorber and more gas can be
bypassed, giving a substantial overall
increase in total plant production
without the need to suffer penalties
from a waiver of the gas quality
standard.
Other benefits from the conversion
were improved plant reliability and
reduced amine consumption. Since the
solvent was removing more CO2 from
the gas at a lower solvent rate, the
absorber operated more stably because
of fewer foaming episodes. Figure 4 gives
a trend of the pressure fluctuations of
the absorber with MDEA and with Gas/
Spec CS-2000 over a period of 12 days.
The magnitude of the pressure
fluctuations was reduced after the
conversion (these pressures were
measured after the filter changes were
made). By improving the filtration
equipment and improving the stability
of the absorber operations, the plant was
able to reduce its annual amine
consumption by 73%.




Gas/Spec SS;
average 0.19

Gas/Spec 2000;
average 0.18








Figure 4 Absorber differential pressure with MDEA and with Gas/Spec CS-2020

Conclusions

Both cases outlined in this article

demonstrate some of the limitations of
using MDEA as a CO2 removal agent.
While MDEA is an excellent solvent for
many treating applications requiring
selectivity, it is not the most suitable
solvent where moderate to high CO2

removal is required. As a result of an

overly optimistic model, the end
processor had to deal with the costs of
penalty fees and lost production from
assets that did not live up to their
original design simulations for years
before the problem could be fixed.
There are numerous CO2 removal

GAS 2009 65

applications in which generic MDEA

will work quite well. However, you must
be careful not to ask for unrealistic
removal rates and to view with suspicion
performance predictions based on
equilibrium-stage simulations, regardless
of claims with respect to corrections for
reaction kinetics. MDEA is a unique
amine from the standpoint of CO2
removal; its ultimate capacity is high
and its very slow pseudo-reactivity with
CO2 means its regeneration energy
requirements are low. However, it
absorbs CO2 only very slowly compared
with reactive amines such as
monoethanol amine (MEA) and
diethanol amine (DEA). MDEAs principle
benefit is slipping CO2. It was never
intended to be used for deep CO2
removal and, as shown by the case
studies reported here, even some bulk
removal applications are problematic.
On the one hand, the (chemical)
equilibrium capacity of MDEA for CO2 is
very high, approaching one mole per
mole at high CO2 partial pressures. On
the other, the physical solubility driving
force for absorption, which relates to the
Henrys Law solubility of CO2 in
essentially water, is so small that
absorption is too slow for trays to have
anything like reasonable efficiencies.
Consequently, the translation from the
few ideal stages calculated theoretically
to the number of real trays actually

necessary becomes extremely hard to

make with any degree of reliability.
These case studies demonstrate that
designs based on theoretical stages, with
or without kinetics corrections, can be
very optimistic, so much so that, when
built, the plants completely fail to meet
expectations. In the present cases, the
failures were mitigated by such factors as
initial operation at lower than design
loads and willingness to accept penalties
for feeding below-specification gas into
a pipeline. This gave enough time to
make such adjustments as a complete
change of solvent to meet design
conditions when they actually occur.
Such reprieves, however, are not always
given and when they are not the plants
owners are left desperately searching for
a solution. Usually, the solution is more
expensive, whether it is extra tower
height for mass transfer contacting or a
speciality amine that should have been
specified in the first place. As shown in
Case 2, the speciality solvent Gas/Spec
CS-2000 was easily able to get to partsper-million CO2 levels and simulation
matched performance.
These kinds of problems can be
avoided by using the mass and heat
transfer rate-based simulator ProTreat to
model the process correctly. One of the
beauties of such simulations is that they
use real trays and actual depths of real
packings from the outset. Furthermore,

they take proper account of the driving

forces for absorption and regeneration
and they predict the separations achieved
by real equipment containing actual
internals with a superb degree of
reliability. The internals details are not
used just to calculate pressure drop and
flood characteristics; internals details are
used primarily to determine mass
transfer performance.
Accurate simulation can provide
increased ability to anticipate the effect
of changing treating conditions in the
plant. The problems discussed in the
case studies could have been avoided by
selecting the correct solvent for the
application at the outset, or by better
prediction of when a solvent change is
needed.
ProTreat is a mark of Optimized Gas Treating.
DGA is a mark of Huntsman Corporation.
GAS/SPEC and CS-2000 are trademarks of
Ineos Oxide, a division of Ineos Americas.
Mellapak Plus M252.Y is a mark of Sulzer
Chemtech.

Jenny Seagraves is Senior Research &

Development Leader with the Ineos Gas/
Spec Technology Group of Ineos Oxide, a
division of Ineos Americas, E Setauket, New
York. Email jenny.seagraves@ineos.com
Ralph H Weiland is a co-founder of
Optimized Gas Treating, Clarita, Oklahoma.
Email: ralph.weiland@ogtrt.com

64 GAS 2009

www.eptq.com